Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93255 Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18160 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Maa Poornagiri Sheetgrah Pvt Ltd Respondent :- Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikeya Saran,Ujjawal Satsangi,Veerendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Alok Sharma Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Alok Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Bank. 2. It is contended that proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called as "the Act") was initiated by the Bank by issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. The proceedings was challenged by the borrower before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which was allowed vide order dated 27.05.2024 and symbolic possession notice dated 02.11..2018, sale notice dated 05.10.2019, auction sale held on 15.11.2019 together with order of District Magistrate dated 19.09.2019 were set aside. 3. The Bank along with auction purchaser had approached Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal by filing appeal. The appeal was initially lying defective but thereafter defect was cured and the appeal was numbered as Appeal Diary No.1089 of 2024 and Appeal Diary No.886 of 2024. By the order impugned dated 28.02.2025, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal had directed the parties to maintain status quo. 4. Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that possession was to be restored pursuant to the order of Debt Recovery Tribunal within ten days, but, after the order passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the possession has not been handed over to the borrower. He further contends that the land has been acquired by National High Authority of India for road widening and compensation has been awarded. He also contends that the Bank on the one hand had auctioned the property and on the other hand is also claiming compensation from the Central Government for acquisition proceedings over the mortgaged property. 5. Sri Rai, learned counsel appearing for the Bank, submits that a direction may be issued to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal to decide both the appeals pending before it. He further submits that outstanding amount along with interest, as on date, is Rs.3,19,83,630.25. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is ready to deposit the entire amount. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of material on record, I find that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage as both the both the appeals being Appeal Diary No.1089 of 2024 filed by the borrower and the Appeal Diary No. 886 of 2024 filed by the Bank are under active consideration before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the date is fixed in the month of August, 2025. Hence, this Court directs that in case the petitioner deposits the entire outstanding amount along with interest by 10th of June, 2025 before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, it shall proceed with the matter and decide both the appeals by 10th of July, 2025, in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties. 8. Any amount deposited earlier, to be adjusted in the final accounting, to be done by the Bank. 9. With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Kushal Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad